Retrospective, Not Retroactive: BC Court of Appeal Confirms Temporal Scope of BPCPA Amendments Prohibiting Mandatory Arbitration Clauses in Consumer Contracts

A year ago the Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act, S.B.C. 2004, c. 2 (the “Act”) was amended to prohibit and void mandatory arbitration clauses in consumer contracts. The amendments contain a transitional provision stating that the prohibition on mandatory arbitration clauses applies to “contracts entered into before, on, or after the coming into force”. They came into force on March 31, 2025. But the amendments do not say whether the prohibition applies where the events at issue in the underlying dispute happened before that date.

In Vandenbosch v. Rogers Communications Canada Inc., 2026 BCCA 102 (“Vandenbosch”), the British Columbia Court of Appeal decided it does not: the amendments void mandatory arbitration clauses in consumer contracts made before March 31, 2025, unless the dispute is about events that happened before that date. In other words, the amendments are retrospective, but not retroactive.

Factual Background

The appeal arose from the British Columbia Supreme Court’s decision staying most of the plaintiff’s claims against Rogers Communications Canada Inc. (“Rogers”) and Match Transact Inc. (“Match”) in favour of arbitration. The plaintiff, a Rogers customer, alleged that in 2021 a hacker impersonating a Rogers technician convinced an employee at a Match-operated mobile kiosk to enable screen sharing, allowing the hacker to perform a SIM swap and steal over $500,000 in Bitcoin from the plaintiff.

In June 2023, the plaintiff sued Rogers, Match, the unknown kiosk employee, and the hacker, alleging breach of contract, negligence, breaches of privacy and consumer protection legislation. Rogers and Match applied to stay the proceeding in favour of arbitration: Rogers relied on an arbitration clause in its wireless services agreement; Match argued the claims against it were too interwoven with those against Rogers to be separated.   

The BCSC Decision

At the initial application hearing in November 2024 the plaintiff conceded some claims were arbitrable. But before the hearing resumed in April 2025, the Act was amended. At the continued hearing the plaintiff resiled from her earlier position and argued the amendments voided Rogers’ arbitration clause and barred a stay of proceedings.

The chambers judge rejected the plaintiff’s argument. She held the amendments were retrospective, but not retroactive: they applied to contracts made before March 31, 2025, but not to disputes about events that had already happened by then. Because the plaintiff’s dispute arose in 2021, the amendments did not apply. A stay in favour of arbitration was granted. The plaintiff appealed.

The BCCA Decision

The BCCA dismissed the appeal and upheld the chambers judge’s decision that the amendments are retrospective but not retroactive. That is, they void mandatory arbitration clauses in contracts entered into before March 31, 2025 but not where the events on which the underlying dispute is based had already arisen by that time.

The Court framed the issue as one of statutory interpretation. It held that the Legislature had not clearly intended the new prohibition on mandatory arbitration clauses to apply to disputes arising before March 31, 2025. Relying on the presumption against retroactive legislation, the Court concluded that the transitional provision could not be construed to deprive businesses of the right to submit to arbitration disputes that had already crystallized. It lacked the kind of express language used when the Legislature intends legislation to operate retroactively. Nor did the amendments explain how they would affect arbitral proceedings that were completed or underway.  

The Court found that the plaintiff’s claims arose from events alleged to have occurred 2021, well before March 31, 2025, so the amendments did not render the Rogers arbitration clause void for the purposes of this dispute.

Key Takeaways

• Vandenbosch provides welcome clarity on the temporal scope of the 2025 amendments to the Act. A mandatory arbitration clause in a consumer contract is enforceable if the dispute in which the clause is asserted arose before the amendments came into effect on March 31, 2025. It is not enforceable where the dispute is based on events that occurred after March 31, 2025, even if the contract itself predates the amendments.
• The Court of Appeal’s decision is a reminder that courts hesitate to interpret legislation as being retroactive. If the Legislature intends to alter substantive rights in respect of pre-existing disputes, it must say so clearly.

We Can Help

McCarthy Tétrault has a leading commercial litigation team. If you have any questions about commercial matters, including contract disputes, arbitration agreements, or matters involving the BC Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act, please contact the authors or the other lawyers in our litigation group.

Case Information

Vandenbosch v. Rogers Communications Canada Inc., 2026 BCCA 102

Docket: CA50859

Date of Decision: March 10, 2026